User:SonnieMunroe/Freedom's Journal/Sarahpanico Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info
=== Whose Work are you reiviewing?-SonnieMunroe


 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)-
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Freedom's Journal ===

=== Lead Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?- Yes it has been updated
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?- There is a brief introduction that talks about the journal and its history/ background.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?- It does this. There is also a content box that shows all of the sections and links to them.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?- All information found in the lead is present elsewhere in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?- The lead is concise. It gives all necessary information while not being too wordy. ===

Lead evaluation- I thought the lead was very good. It provided helpful information and had all of the most important facts.
=== Content Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?- Yes, all information helps add to the information. I think that this provides better context and adds more information to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?- All information is up to data and accurate. Since this focuses on history, all information is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?- I feel like there could be more information about the content of the journals. What did they focus on? How many issue were there? Who were notable contributors?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?- Yes this deals with equity gaps and underrepresented populations and topics. This project was intended to help fill in the gaps. ===

Content evaluation- All of the content was important and relevant. The user did a good job
=== Tone and Balance Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?- The content was neutral, I did not see any opinion.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?- There were no biased claims, just statement of facts.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?- I think that all viewpoints were equally represented and that it is a balanced article.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?- The content does not attempt to persuade it is neutral. ===

Tone and balance evaluation- The article was very professional. There was no opinion or bias, just statement of facts.
=== Sources and References Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?- Yes all of the information was backed up. I saw no unsubstantiated claims.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?- Yes the sources are thorough. They cover the information and are reputable.
 * Are the sources current?- Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?- Yes the sources are diverse. They include marginalized individuals.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?- Yes ===

Organization
=== Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?- Yes the writing style was to the point and well written.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?- I saw no errors in terms of spelling and grammar.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?- There are sections that go over different topics about the journal. They are all relevant and help break down the article. ===

Images and Media
=== Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?- There is a picture of volume one of the journal. It shows what the journal looked like.
 * Are images well-captioned?- Yes it identifies the journal
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?- yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?- The image is laid out in a visually appealing way I just think it could be bigger. It was too small to see any details. ===

For New Articles Only
=== If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? ===

Overall impressions
=== Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?- Yes the article now has more information and provides a better context for the journal.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?- The information helped with the background information about the journal, and key people involved in the journal.
 * How can the content added be improved?- I think the article could talk specifically about the different volumes of the journal and its contents. ===

Lead
=== Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?- Yes it has been updated
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?- There is a brief introduction that talks about the journal and its history/ background.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?- It does this. There is also a content box that shows all of the sections and links to them.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?- All information found in the lead is present elsewhere in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?- The lead is concise. It gives all necessary information while not being too wordy. ===

Content
=== Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?- Yes, all information helps add to the information. I think that this provides better context and adds more information to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?- All information is up to data and accurate. Since this focuses on history, all information is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?- I feel like there could be more information about the content of the journals. What did they focus on? How many issue were there? Who were notable contributors?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?- Yes this deals with equity gaps and underrepresented populations and topics. This project was intended to help fill in the gaps. ===

Tone and Balance
=== Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?- The content was neutral, I did not see any opinion.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?- There were no biased claims, just statement of facts.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?- I think that all viewpoints were equally represented and that it is a balanced article.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?- The content does not attempt to persuade it is neutral. ===

Sources and References
=== Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?- Yes all of the information was backed up. I saw no unsubstantiated claims.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?- Yes the sources are thorough. They cover the information and are reputable.
 * Are the sources current?- Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?- Yes the sources are diverse. They include marginalized individuals.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?- Yes ===

Organization
=== Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?- Yes the writing style was to the point and well written.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?- I saw no errors in terms of spelling and grammar.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?- There are sections that go over different topics about the journal. They are all relevant and help break down the article. ===

Images and Media
=== Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?- There is a picture of volume one of the journal. It shows what the journal looked like.
 * Are images well-captioned?- Yes it identifies the journal
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?- yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?- The image is laid out in a visually appealing way I just think it could be bigger. It was too small to see any details. ===

For New Articles Only
=== If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? ===

Overall impressions
=== Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?- Yes the article now has more information and provides a better context for the journal.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?- The information helped with the background information about the journal, and key people involved in the journal.
 * How can the content added be improved?- I think the article could talk specifically about the different volumes of the journal and its contents. ===